I'm looking at the front page of the NYT and glad to see the British hostages have been released, but can we talk about the clothes? The men have all been given gray suits (which they're wearing without ties), but the poor woman -- Kaye Turney -- must stand for all the news photography in something you'd be embarrassed to wear to the grocery store.
And it's not so much the headscarf. I didn't want to talk about headscarves today. That was the subject yesterday. I mean I'm still getting traffic from this post on Mahablog, which copied one of the several points I had just made in a post that supported Nancy Pelosi wearing a headscarf. Mahablog nevertheless insulted me and linked not to my Pelosi post but to that old, irrelevant post about feminist bloggers posing with Clinton. The pathetic blogger Amanda Marcotte followed on with this embarrassing post, trashing me, under an image of a gravestone. She begins:
Several of her commenters pointed our how badly she misread me (and continues to misread me). An anonymous commenter noted the parenthetical and wrote:
Anyway, back to today's fashion statement from the Mideast. Here's a picture of Kaye Turney back in her Royal Navy uniform and out of that astoundingly frumpy light blue pantsuit. And horrible long knit top with all the horizontal stripes! It's one thing to insist on modest clothing. It's quite another to force someone to appear in photographs to be seen by millions, maybe billions, of people wearing the most godawful pantsuit ever constructed. Talk about the exposure of women!
Couldn't she get a halfway decent gray suit -- like the guys? One that buttons closed over a white shirt? Why dress her in a way that you'd be ashamed to leave the house? Or does that last question answer itself?
And it's not so much the headscarf. I didn't want to talk about headscarves today. That was the subject yesterday. I mean I'm still getting traffic from this post on Mahablog, which copied one of the several points I had just made in a post that supported Nancy Pelosi wearing a headscarf. Mahablog nevertheless insulted me and linked not to my Pelosi post but to that old, irrelevant post about feminist bloggers posing with Clinton. The pathetic blogger Amanda Marcotte followed on with this embarrassing post, trashing me, under an image of a gravestone. She begins:
So, the latest wingnut scandal is that Nancy Pelosi went on a political trip and didn’t show off enough of her womanly attributes. Ann Althouse wants Pelosi to be a little bit more of a sexbot.She linked to the Mahablog rather than to me, so it was pretty obvious that she simply assumed she knew what I'd written and got it absolutely backwards. I updated my post:
Here's Amanda Marcotte's summary of this post: "Ann Althouse wants Pelosi to be a little bit more of a sexbot." Whaa? Marcotte seems to be pulling in signals from outer space. Just flat out nutty, Amanda. Or did you even read this post?After I wrote that, she got a clue and tried to cover up her embarrassment, by inserting a parenthetical (without noting that it was a later insertion):
(To be fair, she does grant that it’s done out of politeness, but generally revolts against covering. I agree with her that mandatory covering is crap, and that’s why I dislike it when she tells women to hide our breasts in public. I typed this up a little fast, and got lazy. Apologies. I recommend the first link on this page if you want to read some non-lazy blogging on this subject.)Oh, yeah, Amanda, that's really fair. How did I "generally revolt against covering" other than in exactly the way you have to be opposed to it too? Or is it "fair" because you hate the old Clinton-and-the-bloggers post so much you're entitled to lie about me whenever you feel like it? When did I ever "tell[] women to hide our breasts in public"? Clue: I never did. You are simply a liar. Or is that okay because you were in a hurry? Should I just type up some fast sentences about you because I don't really think you're worth much time? What a pathetic, lame excuse for shoddy thinking and bad writing!
Several of her commenters pointed our how badly she misread me (and continues to misread me). An anonymous commenter noted the parenthetical and wrote:
So basically what you’re saying is that you agree with Althouse’s post but because you don’t like other things she’s said, this post indicates that she’s an awful person?Here's her response:
Not really, anon. I elucidated further and now have spent about twice as long on this lazy post as I intended. I think the obession [sic] with the headscarf is kind of weird, mostly.So you trash me, but because you meant it to be one of your "lazy" posts, readers are supposed to leave you alone about it? Especially after you went to all that effort to "elucidate further"? And never mind that "anon." was referring to the added parenthetical. One wonders if Amanda knows what the word "elucidate" means. You can't further elucidate unless you've elucidated before and you're elucidating now. Any more Amanda-style elucidating and we'll be groping around in total darkness. But, oh, well, I'm tired now and you're kind of weird.
Anyway, back to today's fashion statement from the Mideast. Here's a picture of Kaye Turney back in her Royal Navy uniform and out of that astoundingly frumpy light blue pantsuit. And horrible long knit top with all the horizontal stripes! It's one thing to insist on modest clothing. It's quite another to force someone to appear in photographs to be seen by millions, maybe billions, of people wearing the most godawful pantsuit ever constructed. Talk about the exposure of women!
Couldn't she get a halfway decent gray suit -- like the guys? One that buttons closed over a white shirt? Why dress her in a way that you'd be ashamed to leave the house? Or does that last question answer itself?